I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...
Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment).
The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3].
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47
[2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...
This cliche comes from a WWI era Supreme Court ruling and was part of the argument for how imprisoning anti-war protestors for “sedition” wasn’t technically a violation of the First Amendment.
Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.
A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger.
But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.